Featured Jehovah's Witnesses were going door to door...

What Moody said is true for almost everyone of my generation.
On Sunday stores were closed. Rec centers were closed. There was nothing to do. The old adage from your parents: "If you want something to do go outside and find something to do."
There were no computers, electronics. TV of course was very limited, black and white, perhaps two stations which rarely came in clearly. Variety in programming was very limited. In my teen years I lived in a town further north than where I live now. It is cold here; it was colder there. (Saturday night it will be minus 30 C. with a high of -25 C on Sunday).
What was Sunday?
It was a day of rest; not the Sabbath, but a day of rest--a day when people went to church. It was not the Sabbath--ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so.
He wasn't a theologian. He had a grade five education. He was an evangelist!!
Quit slandering him! He does not believe in the Sabbath!!

 

I have never argued against your right to differ with Moody.

I argue against your false accusations against me.

 

you consider a full quote of Moody to be "slander" simply because Moody differs with some of the not-well-thought-out views that you hold.

How sad that you need so little incentive to falsely accuse others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

When I was a lad here in PA back in the sixties, I remember most everything was closed on Sunday by law. You had to be a necessity retailer in order to stay open on Sunday or pay a fine. Yeah I remember even as a teenager complaining there was no stores open on Sunday, we thought it was great when they lifted the ban and then later we got 24/7 stores, that was awesome! Lol.

 

Your first statement is true. You have allowed one.

Your second statement is utterly false as will be shown.

Sadly you content yourself with denying the actual words in his own sermon about his own practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK

2. Moody says that he works on Saturday more than on any other day of the week. It is his busiest day. He works on the Sabbath. That is not keeping the Sabbath.


As for the nonsense that D.L. Moody did not regard Sunday as the Sabbath -

Just the facts - no matter how frightened you may be of the actual words in D.L. Moody's sermon.

Some of the same points that Moody makes can also be found in the "Baptist Confession of Faith" so it is inexplicable that you are so frightened of the actual words in Moody's sermon and yet you seem to be willing to tolerate the quote of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

================

then this reasonable post follows.

In fact Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so.



So then comes the utter nonsense.

how is it that you must insert utter nonsense into a post that was actually making sense for a short while?

Why keep doing that?


in Christ,

Bob

 

In fact Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so.

Yet given that fact - we cannot join DHK in lying about what Moody said - we must let Moody speak for himself even though we may not agree with his views 100%.

Verbatim. No comments added. Yet DHK fears these words - as they read - with nothing added.

in Christ,

Bob

 

My second statement was: "Moody himself worked on the Sabbath (Saturday)." You say that is false. Here is what Moody said in the same sermon you have been quoting from:

1. He defined the Sabbath as Sunday.
2. He said he couldn't rest on the Sabbath as he defined it.
3. He said he would have to rest on some other day, which by chance he chose Saturday--not because it was the Sabbath. It was just a convenient day to him--the week-end.

He admonishes others in the Lord's work to do the same thing in the following paragraph.
They say they don't take a day of rest because they work on Sunday; it is their busiest day. Moody says that is wrong. What is he telling them? Take a day of rest! Not necessarily on Saturday, but on any day of the week; one day out of Sunday man should rest. That is what he believed.

Why should I be frightened of the truth? Some day you will stand before God and give account for every word you have said or posted here, and the way that you have misrepresented these people.
Moody may have rested on Saturday, but it wasn't a worshipful rest. It was simply a rest from whatever "secular" business he may have been involved in or what he may have considered his "secular" work. IOW, he may have taken a rest, as a preacher, from preaching. But even that was not always so. His biographies indicate that he held many great evangelistic crusades which included Saturdays. He was a busy man.
He was not legalistic.

Moody did not believe in the Sabbath; he redefined it. The sooner you understand that the sooner you can stop slandering him.

Why keep pointing out your misrepresentation of Moody? Because it is slander. And Moody was not SDA or gave any credence whatsoever to the SDA movement. In fact he preached against it.

 

Hi everyone, I just want to say and this is how I understand the scripture!

Forgiveness revoked..there is no such thing if you have truly given your heart to the Lord...you have to be sincere in your heart! Otherwise you have not gained salvation through Jesus Christ! Correct me if I'm wrong!

John 10:27-30
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."

 

Is there a reason you can't actually address the points raised by MH; the ones I posted for you?
Here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2068756&postcount=39

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

Any day is good for the sabbath so long as we take 1 day of the week and give it to the lord..We are not bound by the old law of Moses! We're saved by grace not law...that does not mean we should kick the old law aside...it is a great guide to living a good Christian life and should be followed!

 

Until you read Matt 18 and note the point is made "I Forgave you ALL that debt" - the fully forgiven saved saint is the one being condemned in Matt 18 and Christ adds this application "SO shall my Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive others...".

Similar to what we find in Matt 6 and the Lord's prayer.

in Cbrist,

Bob

 

True - but sadly for you -- your claim was that he WORKED the hardest of all on SATURDAY. Not "he rested the most on Saturday". (Details matter)

You said "2. Moody says that he works on Saturday more than on any other day of the week. It is his busiest day."

Right after you accused me of not having read Moody's sermon on the Sabbath or knowing the details.

Now you have two of your OWN conflicted statements to contend with -- showing that your efforts to hold the truth at a distance is not serving you well.

DHK said: "3. He said he would have to rest on some other day, which by chance he chose Saturday- "

And DHK self-conflictedly said
DHK " Moody says that he works on Saturday more than on any other day of the week. It is his busiest day"

I point to your own contradictions because it reveals that you do not care if your point is true - or if the exact OPPOSITE of your point is true - you are just looking for some way to circle a certain tradition with some form of argument.

You don't even blink when it is pointed out that the exact opposite of your point is correct - because you were not actually relying on your initial point as proof of something.

So nothing is "disproven" when your initial point turns out to be completely false.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Utter nonsense "again"????

Why keep doing that??

Who made up the silly rule that if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is not a Seventh-day Adventist publication then no point that it makes in favor of the TEN Commandments can be quoted by me?? What sort of nonsense is that?

Who made up the rule that if the "Westminster Confession of Faith" is not a Seventh-day Adventist publication then no point that it makes in favor of the TEN Commandments can be quoted by me?? What sort of nonsense is that?

Who made up the rule that if the "C.H Spurgeon" is not a Seventh-day Adventist then no point that he makes in favor of the TEN Commandments can be quoted by me?? What sort of nonsense is that?

Who made up the rule that if the "R.C.Sproul" is not a Seventh-day Adventist then no point that he makes in favor of the TEN Commandments can be quoted by me?? What sort of nonsense is that?

Who made up the rule that if the "D.L. Moody" is not a Seventh-day Adventist then no point that he makes in favor of the TEN Commandments can be quoted by me?? What sort of nonsense is that?

I have quoted from ALL of these sources pointing out that they do not need to be 100% wrong - just because they are not Seventh-day Adventists. They actually get some points right and when they do - I am happy to admit it.


Your "any ol excuse for name-calling" idea merely gets you into the rut of using utter nonsense as your best defense in some cases.

Why keep doing that??

Who is it supposed to fool? Me??

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is an "any ol excuse" model that some people use that is inflated with loads of name-calling that no doubt finds it much more "convenient" to have documents quoted that do NOT come from a wide variety of accepted sources. What fun it wold be for the name-callers to have someone like me only quote from SDA sources.

So i never do that (unless someone here gets into a "I know more about what you believe than you do" losing argument). The result is that it is a wide variety of well known well accepted sources that are found to have this or that key point in favor of some doctrine we are discussing. This leaves the "name calling routine" the unpleasant task of condemning many sources and groups at some point

They much prefer to vilify one target - thus I always quote OTHER sources rather than those of my own denomination so that the name-calling-all-the-time group will get a tiny hint. Name-calling is not the solution to every Bible challenge to man-made tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

List the points.

I was responding to Steaver's claim and your wild claim added - that no one used the phrase I used or spoke to the point I was speaking to.

As I noted in the quote from me above - MH believes in OSAS and STILL uses the phrase you complain about.

How sad for your "gaming" argument.

Obviously MH would want to spin the parable and find a way for OSAS to survive it. My point was simply that he did acknowledge that phrase as valid.

Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew Henry[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 18[/FONT]
(2.) How he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance, so that the judgment against him revived He delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. Though the wickedness was very great, his lord laid upon him no other punishment than the payment of his own debt. Note, Those that will not come up to the terms of the gospel need be no more miserable than to be left open to the law, and to let that have its course against them. See how the punishment answers the sin he that would not forgive shall not be forgiven He delivered him to the tormentors the utmost he could do to his fellow servant was but to cast him into prison, but he was himself delivered to the tormentors. Note, The power of God's wrath to ruin us, goes far beyond the utmost extent of any creature's strength and wrath. The reproaches and terrors of his own conscience would be his tormentors, for that is a worm that dies not devils, the executioners of God's wrath, that are sinners' tempters now, will be their tormentors for ever. He was sent to Bridewell till he should pay all. Note, Our debts to God are never compounded either all is forgiven or all is exacted glorified saints in heaven are pardoned all, through Christ's complete satisfaction damned sinners in hell are paying all, that is, are punished for all. The offence done to God by sin is in point of honour, which cannot be compounded for without such a diminution as the case will by no means admit, and therefore, some way or other, by the sinner or by his surety, it must be satisfied.

in Christ,

Bob

 

By contrast God Himself said it is "THE SEVENTH day" -- the very day. Ex 20:8-11.

In fact God said "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath" Ex 16.

Not "any day in 7 you want".6-13 Christ condemns the idea of using man-made-tradition to set aside - edit - downsize the Commandments of God found in the WORD of God.

In Mark 7:

Manna fell on 6 days and not on THE 7th day - no way to construe it as "any day you wish to pick".

Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admits that from EDEN to the time of Christ - it is the SAME exact day - that is kept -- the last day of the week - which is the 7th. The document proposes that it was edited/changed after the cross to point to week-day-1 though no scripture supports that idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I had already done it once. Why didn't you answer them before?
What does Matthew Henry believe. Look at his commentary and see:

If you use MH as a source then you must look at the parable from his point of view. He believes that the kingdom is the church. He also believes that there are two kinds of servants: one, by profession only, and the other by obligation, or truly saved. He will clarify that in further quotes.

Salvation is not of works, but by faith alone.

Was Ahab, Manasseh, Pharaoh, Judas, Simon Magus, Belshazzar, or Felix ever saved? No. But they all, at one time or another, "repented," sought "forgiveness," were "convicted of their sin," etc. But they were never saved in the first place, were they?

What does Matthew Henry see as the real application of the parable, the real lesson that you have so conveniently missed or purposely omitted??

Isn't it amazing how you say that MH teaches contrary to what his commentary says that he teaches. I would call that slander and lying, wouldn't you?

You never answered this part of MH's post. You ignored it completely. I don't think he contradicts himself. I think you take out of context what he teaches. If he doesn't then explain his above comments.

 

isn't it amazing that you keep making the accusation without ever showing it to be true "in fact".

Why keep doing that?

At some point - in one of your "repeats" it might be helpful to "actually prove it" at least once.

========================== until then....

 

I listed MH's points. Why keep doing that: you meaning keep posting his quotes? Because you don't respond to them. You won't respond to them. Responding to them would prove beyond doubt that you are taking what you posted out of context. MH is not schizophrenic as you have set him up to be. Refute the quotes that I have quoted from his commentary on Matthew 18 instead of simply copy and pasting the same old quote over and over again.